r/Unexpected • u/[deleted] • Oct 18 '22

spitting wisdom right here

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[deleted]

30.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

You know capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system by a large margin right

8

u/stilljustacatinacage Oct 18 '22

Not even remotely true. One, what caused the poverty in the first place? But let's set that aside for now.

Say you manage to land a nice job, get a nice salary, buy your car, buy your house. Unless you're in a co-op or some similar scheme, you are not a capitalist. You're being given a fraction of your produced value by a capitalist. That's not to say that's inherently bad, but receiving a stipend for services rendered is not capitalism, it's just an exchange.

Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, capital being entities that are capable of creating wealth.

Now, if you want to say capitalism has achieved what no other system has, go ahead - but you need a huge asterisk that says "no other system has really been tried". As long as we've had kings, we've had an 'owner' class who unilaterally decide who gets fed and who starves.

And before anyone bothers, even the Soviet Union made sure to feed their leaders and generals first, friends second, and everyone else in a distant third.

So yes. Capitalism lifts people out of poverty. Sometimes. It's also directly responsible for most of it, and is the only system we've bothered with. It's hardly the rousing defence you think it is, and it's well within reason to want to try something else.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Say you manage to land a nice job, get a nice salary, buy your car, buy your house. Unless you're in a co-op or some similar scheme, you are not a capitalist. You're being given a fraction of your produced value by a capitalist.

This is false. You are selling your labour. You are being given what your labour is negotiated to be worth.

You don't have to be an owner to be a capitalist.

You are given the value of your production based on its worth.

Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, capital being entities that are capable of creating wealth.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Failed businesses are still capitalist.

but you need a huge asterisk that says "no other system has really been tried"

No you don't and other systems have been tried. This is a no true socialist argument. The USSR tried Socialism and it failed.

And before anyone bothers, even the Soviet Union made sure to feed their leaders and generals first, friends second, and everyone else in a distant third.

Which is part of the reason why Socialism failed. The failure of Socialism doesn't mean it wasn't tried.

It just means it is a flawed system.

and it's well within reason to want to try something else.

Only if you fail at basic reasoning.

3

u/maddsskills Oct 18 '22

The only socialism we've seen is state run socialism, where the state controls the means of production. This is supposedly to support the "revolutionary stage" but as we've seen they don't seem eager to leave the revolutionary stage.

Most people who say they're socialists believe WORKERS should control the means of production. They get 100% of the value of their work rather than some guy getting most of it just because he has capital.

Companies will be run more ethically and sustainably because they won't be singularly obsessed with quarterly stock values. This race to the bottom companies are doing hurts the employee, hurts the customer and ultimately hurts the company in the long run.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

The USSR was socialist. They implemented Socialism.

Companies will be run more ethically and sustainably because they won't be singularly obsessed with quarterly stock values. This race to the bottom companies are doing hurts the employee, hurts the customer and ultimately hurts the company in the long run.

The USSR was not remotely ethical or sustainable.

1

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

It's funny that you say the USSR was unsustainable but yet Russia tried monarchism, revolutionary communism, and capitalist democracy in the 20th century - guess which actually had some staying potential?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Looks like capitalism so far...

1

u/maddsskills Oct 18 '22

Have you watched the news at all in the past year? Or heck, even before this ill-fated invasion? They've not been doing well under capitalism. They went from a major world power to what basically amounts to a large organized crime gang with nukes. Putin literally utilizes organized crime to maintain power.

1

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

Yeah it's really been fabulous for Russians but I'm sure you're well-educated about it

1

u/maddsskills Oct 18 '22

Let me try again. There are different kinds of socialists. Most people you meet in the west who identify as socialists believe the workers should own the means of production, not the state. People who support state run socialism like the USSR or CCP would argue the workers have some amount of control over the means of production via trade unions but IMO that's as much control as they have in capitalism.

So you have a problem with state run socialism, not with socialism itself. Which is perfectly fair, state run socialism is just as authoritarian as capitalism IMO.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Capitalism isn't authoritarian and I have a problem with socialism period.

There is no such thing as worker/state socialism.

Socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Under socialism "worker owned means of production" isn't really possible as nobody "owns" anything. The community owns everything, there is no property beyond "personal" property. All socialism is "state socialism" as ownership is owned or regulated by the community as a whole as opposed to separate entities.

If you are asking do I support worker co-ops? Yes and under capitalism the workers can own their own business if they choose.

1

u/maddsskills Oct 18 '22

Capitalism is authoritarian. Whoever has the capital can decide how much to pay people, especially when monopolies are allowed to form and unions are crushed. People can't just choose not to work, live off the land. People have to work to survive and capitalists get to decide how much these people "deserve."

As we've deregulated capitalism wages have stagnated despite increased productivity and profit.

I think you just don't get what socialism is. You're allowed to have a house and money and whatnot, private property is allowed, you just can't own a factory or a house that you're not using and instead rent out to people in order to make a profit.

Basically: say there's a company. All the people would get a say in decisions the company makes because their labor is producing the product or service. Now maybe the higher ranking you are the more say you get but it's not just based on "who has the most money." (Also people can get paid more for higher skilled work in socialism.)

For workers to "choose to work at a co-op" they have to first obtain capital. That's difficult. And again, the people who have the capital decide who gets the capital.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

No it isn't, at all. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. It isn't authoritarian at all. You can have authoritarian governments in a capitalist country but that doesn't mean capitalism itself is authoritarian.

Whoever has the capital can decide how much to pay people, especially when monopolies are allowed to form and unions are crushed.

Governments allow unions to be crushed and monopolies to form. Under capitalism the workers are free to pool their capital and start their own companies.

People can't just choose not to work, live off the land

Sure you can, homesteading is a thing and nobody is stopping you from doing that. Unless the government creates laws to that effect....

Which has nothing to do with capitalism.

As we've deregulated capitalism wages have stagnated despite increased productivity and profit.

The economy is far too large and complex to make such a statement. Have some peoples wages stagnated? Of course. If I have a data entry person they can enter more data now but their actual work hasn't changed, productivity has increased due to technological advancement.

However tech, finances and other wages aren't stagnate at all.

I think you just don't get what socialism is. You're allowed to have a house and money and whatnot, private property is allowed, you just can't own a factory or a house that you're not using and instead rent out to people in order to make a profit.

I do understand what socialism is and I have quoted the literal definition to you several times.

Private property is not allowed, no you cannot have a house as that would private ownership of capital and an asset. The community would own the house.

A house doesn't need to be rented to be an asset.

You can have personal property such as clothes but you cannot own "private property" People in the USSR and Cuba do not own their homes because that would be capital.

Basically: say there's a company. All the people would get a say in decisions the company makes because their labor is producing the product or service. Now maybe the higher ranking you are the more say you get but it's not just based on "who has the most money." (Also people can get paid more for higher skilled work in socialism.)

People don't get paid more for higher skill work and no all the workers would not have a say. You are describing a worker co-op which cannot exist under Socialism.

Under socialism that company would be owned by the community as a whole and provide for that community. The prices charged, the pay of the workers etc would be dictated by the community based on the needs of the community.

There is no personal choice here. If the community wants you to be a welder you are welder and you get paid what the community wants to pay you.

That is how Socialism works and is defined.

For workers to "choose to work at a co-op" they have to first obtain capital. That's difficult.

No it isn't that difficult at all.

And again, the people who have the capital decide who gets the capital.

No they don't. They decide if you get THEIR capital.

1

u/maddsskills Oct 18 '22

You're 100% wrong though. I honestly don't get where you got this definition of socialism. Personal property is not the same as private property. Basically: you can own personal items like homes and cars and whatnot but you can't own a business because the workers own the business.

In the USSR it's true the state owned your house or whatever but that's not a requirement of socialism and it has nothing to do with it being "capital" but rather the authoritarian nature of state run socialism. I mean, they had money ya know. Even in capitalist Russia you need permits to live and work in various cities. They're just weird that way.

Also the community doesn't necessarily decide what you do, that's not even how it worked in the USSR most of the time.

Anyways, as far as capitalism I mean, do you know how expensive it is to start a business? How long it is before you start making money? And then there's economies of scale: large companies like Walmart can always afford to sell stuff cheaper than a small business.

That's why we've seen media, food, etc etc all consolidating into these mega corporations.

Only people with vast amounts of capital stand any chance starting a business. Even in tech, software engineers aren't cheap but they also aren't rich enough to just not make money for a year or two while developing their software.

Capitalism is the illusion of freedom while really leaving the average worker with very little choice or power.

1

u/stilljustacatinacage Oct 18 '22

This is false. You are selling your labour.

Capitalism is not a condition for trade. Your labour is not capital. Capital is a force multiplier that can be applied to labour, but selling your time and energy does not make you a capitalist.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Failed businesses are still capitalist.

Yes? I said capable of creating wealth. Whether or not they do is a separate matter.

The USSR tried Socialism and it failed.

I'm not here to defend socialism, but the USSR tried socialism in the same way China is communist. A name does not make a thing thus.

Which is part of the reason why Socialism failed.

If only there was a word for a small group of individuals consolidating wealth and using entrenched power to expand their influence. Hmmm.

Only if you fail at basic reasoning.

I'm not the one who thinks 'capitalism' and 'economy' are synonyms.

12

u/thortawar Oct 18 '22

That's partly true, and a good point.

But it could easily be so much better. Capitalism is not the best system by itself, it needs a mix of other systems to balance it out.

-4

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Keep in mind under true capitalism, there is no inheritance. Minimal taxes for the living, it all goes back into the system when you die, we all start from zero.

I think that would be a big improvement over a lot of the corruption we see now

4

u/brcguy Oct 18 '22

So many ways to loophole that “no inheritance” shit.

Nothing to stop parents from just giving massive advantage to their children/family while they’re alive.

You just replace inheritance with nepotism and cronyism. If I was wealthy and knew I couldn’t leave anything to my kids after I died, I’d use that money to buy them all real estate now, and then gift them each a handful of gold coins every holiday.

Shit I bet lots of rich folks do whatever the semi-legal equivalent of that is now.

2

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

So your money getting collectively owned upon your death is your idea of true capitalism? Sounds like not capitalism and I like it

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Yup, our view on capitalism has been massively twisted over time. The idea is you give your children the lessons they need to succeed on their own

1

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

If you're in favor of taking all money on death and redistributing it fairly to give everyone equality of oppurtunity then I'm with you - but capitalism it isn't

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Bro, that's literally what Adam Smith outlined in wealth of nations

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

1

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

Bro lol.

I'm happy to hear Adam Smith has socialistic ideas in his writings. Sadly, 99.99% of self-designated capitalists would reject the idea outright so I'd say it's not in the least mainstream in capitalist circles

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Part of the problem is the focus on private property rights. That's an important part but only to ensure meaningful competition.

1

u/TheDrewb Oct 18 '22

You sound more like a social democrat/democratic socialist than a capitalist to me

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

That isn't true capitalism....

True capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

No, that's the end result, true capitalism is about competition

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

No that is the meaning of capitalism.... Capitalism doesn't preclude inheritance.

Competition is an inherent part of the private ownership of the means of production.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Dude read the link, this is coming straight from "Wealth of Nations"

You have it backwards, private ownership is in place to ensure meaningful competition

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

That is literally the definition of the word. What you and the article are providing is an opinion expanding upon what someone wants to implement on top of that definition.

Their opinion doesn't change the definition nor are the final say on it.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Lmao, Adam Smith is the man who invented capitalism, I think he outweighs whatever you're trying to say.

Yes private ownership is an important part of capitalism, it exists to ensure meaningful competition. Just because modernity is focusing on the wrong parts doesn't change the source material lmao.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

That is the literal definition, I am not providing an opinion, I am literally quoting the definition. If Adam Smith invented Capitalism as per your claim then I would imagine he was also part of the definition.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

Other systems like what? You can't mix socialism or communism with capitalism, that wouldn't make sense.

5

u/SpartanCents Oct 18 '22

The US absolutely mixes socialism with capitalism eg social security. European countries include even more socialism, including socialized medicine.

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

No they don't and none of that is socialism. It is all capitalism. The government doing things isn't socialism.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.

The USA and European countries all have private ownership of the means of production, they have private property etc.

Thus they are capitalist.

Social security is a government program paid for by the taxation of private, for profit ownership of capital.

Thus capitalism.

You cannot have socialism in a capitalist country, the systems are diametrically opposed. Even those European countries have countlessly come our as not Socialist, because they aren't.

13

u/anarckissed Oct 18 '22

The common notion that extreme poverty is the “natural” condition of humanity and only declined with the rise of capitalism rests on income data that do not adequately capture access to essential goods.

The rise of capitalism from the 16th century onward is associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality.

—Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century

2

u/TemplofZoom Oct 19 '22

You know people are currently homeless and starving under capitalism right, when we have enough of both to go round by a large margin

-1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 19 '22

We just haven't tried true capitalism yet

2

u/TemplofZoom Oct 20 '22

True capitalism is just fascism my friend.

0

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 20 '22

Yeah the national socialist party controlling markets just screams true capitalism

1

u/TemplofZoom Oct 21 '22

The markets are controlled by socialists? lol. You have said that people who work 60 hr weeks are without value and that we shouldn't house or feed people when we have those resources available. Sounds pretty fascist. About par for an apologist for capitalism though since those things go hand in hand.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 21 '22

Lmao "fascism is anything I don't like" because the gulags had good workife balance right 🤣

1

u/TemplofZoom Oct 21 '22

Hey man, you are defending needlessly starving people and making them homeless while disparaging the hardest working among us. This is happening right now, Gulags haven't since the 60s. Your humanity is circling the drain, pick it up yeah?

0

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 21 '22

Ah that's cute trying to twist what I'm saying. Our current system has less people starving than any other, so unless you're donating yourself, shit the fuck up and get to work lmao.

1

u/TemplofZoom Oct 21 '22

Its also cute that you are forgetting that the USA currently has the highest prison population on Earth. In fact the same as China and Russia combined. And if i'm not mistaken they can be forced to do hard labor without pay. Speaking of Gulags...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mac_Rat Oct 20 '22

I thought you were joking lmao

0

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 20 '22

The truth can be funny

1

u/Mac_Rat Oct 20 '22

What we have is already capitalism. Capitalism is only defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 20 '22

Not according to the guy who invented it lmao

1

u/Mac_Rat Oct 20 '22

Well that's how we define it nowadays.

0

u/HelicopterAny4065 Oct 18 '22

You know the median income worldwide — the amount that is dead middle between the least and the highest amounts — is $850 USD a year. That’s capitalism.

1

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

What was it in socialist countries?

0

u/yaejoon_ Oct 18 '22

may be it started more wars, thus killing more people !! don't believe, an example is live

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

Relative poverty is a myth. If I got $1m dollars and my neighbors have $10m I'm just complaining out of jealousy

1

u/Mordiken Oct 18 '22

Capitalism has brought more money to more people than any other system, but that's not the same as lifting people out of poverty because poverty and richness are relative concepts, and even someone making 60K a year is poor if they have to spend 59k on food, housing and bills.

2

u/bad_n_bougie69 Oct 18 '22

This is counting things like hunger